On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:21:29AM +0530, Susant Sahani wrote: > On 11/18/2014 12:06 AM, Greg KH wrote: > >On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 06:47:33PM +0100, Ronny Chevalier wrote: > >>2014-11-17 18:31 GMT+01:00 Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>: > >>>On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:44:14PM +0530, Susant Sahani wrote: > >>>>On 11/17/2014 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote: > >>>>>On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:36:53PM +0530, Susant Sahani wrote: > >>>>>>On 11/17/2014 10:26 PM, Greg KH wrote: > >>>>>>>On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 04:28:58PM +0530, Susant Sahani wrote: > >>>>>>>>--- > >>>>>>>> src/tty-ask-password-agent/tty-ask-password-agent.c | 2 +- > >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>diff --git a/src/tty-ask-password-agent/tty-ask-password-agent.c > >>>>>>>>b/src/tty-ask-password-agent/tty-ask-password-agent.c > >>>>>>>>index e6dc84b..1fc792b 100644 > >>>>>>>>--- a/src/tty-ask-password-agent/tty-ask-password-agent.c > >>>>>>>>+++ b/src/tty-ask-password-agent/tty-ask-password-agent.c > >>>>>>>>@@ -376,8 +376,8 @@ static int wall_tty_block(void) { > >>>>>>>> return -ENOMEM; > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> mkdir_parents_label(p, 0700); > >>>>>>>>- mkfifo(p, 0600); > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>+ (void)mkfifo(p, 0600); > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>You really aren't "fixing" anything in these patches, just merely > >>>>>>>papering over the Coverity issues. Which is fine, if you really want > >>>>>>>to > >>>>>>>do that, but don't think it's anything other than that... > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Yes my intention is to for coverity only Any way next line 'open' > >>>>>>handling > >>>>>>the error case . > >>>>> > >>>>>I'm sorry, but I don't understand this sentance at all, can you rephrase > >>>>>it? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>Sorry let me rephrase it. This patch only for coverity . The next like of > >>>>mkfifo is open . > >>>> > >>>>(void)mkfifo(p, 0600); > >>>>fd = open(p, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC|O_NONBLOCK|O_NOCTTY); > >>>>if (fd < 0) > >>>> return -errno; > >>>> > >>>>and open is handling the failure. > >>> > >>>Then coverity should be fixed, don't paper over stupid bugs in tools for > >>>no reason. > >>I disagree. > >> > >>Coverity can not infer this in any possible way. How can coverity > >>infer that we do not care about the return value of mkfifo ? > >>It really depends of the semantic here. > > > >Coverity is a "semantic checker", why can't it be changed to determine > >if mkfifo() is followed by open() and an error check, that it is safe > >code? It does this for lots of other common patterns. > > For now mkfifo/mkdir/ioctl coverity is not that smart or is it ?
Talk to the coverity people. Given that it is a closed source tool, that costs money, I am very loath to do anything to make it "better", and I really don't like it forcing programs to work around its deficiencies. greg k-h _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel